User talk:PurpleHz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Categories
You're right — it would definitely be odd to describe modern Dukes of York as "Dukes in England" simply because York is in England. (To me, "Dukes in England" would just mean "Dukes (of whatever Peerage or nationality) who happen currently to be in England".) Titles normally correspond to places within the geographical area of their Peerage, but not always (the Earl of Mexborough is an Earl in the Peerage of Ireland, but Mexborough is in Yorkshire, for instance), and so it's dangerous to imply too close an automatic connection between country and title. And yes, our categorisation of Dukes is a little odd. I'd take "Category:Dukes of York" out of "Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" etc., and put them both in "Category:Dukes" (or "Category:British dukes"). Proteus (Talk) 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That's very interesting, in fact you just say that this user and I are wrong. "Category:British dukes" seems promising as a sub-cat of "Dukes". Thanks again ! --PurpleHz 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE:Oxford DNB
I don't think there is any free way. And sadly it is very expensive, but will be free if you're part of an institution that subscribes to it (e.g. a university). Email me with your user address and I'll send you the article if you like. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Gripe at anonymous user
FYI, the IP address from which someone did a bit of vandalism got rotated quite quickly over to someone else (me!) that Didn't Do It. Seems likely that griping at random IP addresses isn't very useful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.229.38 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What?!
Hi! Can you please explain to me why you removed the picture of Bare-eyed Thrush from the pertinent article? It's most certainly correct! MeegsC | Talk 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see the problem! I've put the wrong scientific name on the picture. I used a world listing and just looked up "Bare-eyed Thrush" without realizing there are two species with that common name—and I used the African thrush name rather than the South American one. I'll correct that now... MeegsC | Talk 22:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Right :) PurpleHz 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] K. elegans
The fruit of K. bipinnata and K. elegans are almost identical. From what I can tell, it's the flowers that separate them. The pictures I took are of plants growing here in Casino and K. elegans is listed as an invasive species here. In fact, I can find no record of K. bipinnata growing in this part of the world at all. Peter1968 00:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Basilisk picture
Hi, PurpleHz. You just deleted this lizard picture from Common basilisk, noting that it was Corytophanes cristatus. I'm really embarrassed, to make that sort of error. In truth, though, my expertise is among inverts, not herptiles. May I ask, though, are you quite sure? The caption in the old Lydekker, the source of the picture, has it as "Helmeted Basilisk", which is now C. cristatus, but the text indicates that the scientific name for the figured lizard is Basiliscus americanus. The reptile database has B. americanus as a synonym of B. basiliscus. That's why I put it on the Common basilisk page. Plus, it really looks like other illustrations of B. basiliscus that I've found, at least to my not-too-good eye. Thanks for your help. Tim Ross·talk 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, i'm not a specialist either ! The image seemed doutbful to me, so since it was named 'Helmeted Basilisk', I thought it was an error, so I've added the scientific name found on Corytophanes. It could have been a Common Basilisk, but after browsing several minutes on flickr and others, I couldn't be absolutely sure. If the source indicates Basiliscus americanus, then it's ok, but please mention it to the image, so there won't be any further debate. PS: you should have uploaded the new scan to Commons, so it could be available for all, there is an old scan here : Image:HelmetedBasiliskLyd.jpg. Thank you for correcting my mistake ! Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bengalia article
Hi. In the future, be aware that edits originating from 89.1.xxx.xxx are all treated as sockpuppets of already-banned accounts, and can be deleted on sight - if you see them, then please go ahead and delete them. I think it only antagonizes him more if I'm the only editor removing his postings. Dyanega (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Robert de Mowbray
Hi. I have the DNB article as a Word doc on my PC. Have you an e-mail address that I can send it to? Dposte46 (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. I have just sent an e-mail with an attachment to the address that you gave. Let me know if you didn't get it. Dposte46 (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lapwing
I did get permission from the authors to use that picture, but will do the necessary. JMK (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] White-chinned Sapphire
I have un-done your removal of the photo for above mentioned species. Please read the text I added after the photo. Notice also several things that easily identifies it as a female White-chinned Emerald, e.g. faint blue throat-speckling, coppery-tinged rump contrasting with dark tail, coppery-tinged crissum, etc. As you presumable are not familiar with the Sombre Hummingbird, there are photos of that species on Arthur Grosset's page here. 212.10.84.45 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Yellow-eared Woodpecker
I have also undone your edit for this species on commons. Again, notice several things that easily identifies it as a Yellow-eared Woodpecker: Yellow nape, faint back-streaking, faint whitish facial streaks and relatively uniform reddish crown. As you presumable are not familiar with the White-spotted Woodpecker, there are photos of that species on Arthur Grosset's page here. 212.10.84.45 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
